This seems like a very Anglo and anachronistically racialist take. Catholic colonial empires were characterized by a different ethos than, say, the Protestant

This seems like a very Anglo and anachronistically racialist take. Catholic colonial empires were characterized by a different ethos than, say, the Protestant English. The former involved a good deal of intermarriage (beginning with Cortes himself) and saw what could be described as cultural transfiguration and fusion. The latter tended to see the natives through the lens of Amalek (ask the Acadians about their experiences with the British). So, the distinction between conqueror/conquered is a false dichotomy, as Hispanic peoples are heirs to the heritage of both. And even where the heritage of non-Spanish origin is concerned, here, too, it is not quite so simple. After all, Cortes did not conquer Tenochtitlan with his merry band of men alone. He did so in alliance with the enemies of the Aztecs (e.g., Tlaxcalans, Tetzcocans, Cempoalans, Huejotzingans) who numbered in the thousands, and these do not include the historical enemies of the Aztecs, some of whom were conquered by them.